But lately I am starting to feel sorry for them. In a well publicized move Microsoft is trying to counter the very effective Apple ads by releasing their own I’m a PC ads. The campaign began with the now canceled Jerry Seinfeld ads and have progressed to attacking the Apple ads.

The whole scenario reminds me of my teenage years. I can recall more than a couple kids growing up who were in the least socially awkward and more often than not were outcasts. These kids had not yet figured out who they were and instead watched the “cool” kids and imitated them as best they could. When the cool kids wore a certain brand of clothes they went out and bought them too. When the cool kids talked about a certain type of music they would go buy the CDs even if they did not like the music.

It was obvious to everyone what was going on. As hard as they tried they were just a little off and it showed. Why, because they were trying to be someone else rather than themselves. Enter Microsoft. Apple released the wildly popular iPod and Microsoft follows years later with the Zune. Firefox creates tabbed browsing and years later Microsoft updates IE 7 to include tabs. Even the PC is in this category. The first Windows PC was not released for 15 years after the Apple II.

The point of the new ads is try to paint Apple as an elitist and Microsoft as the common person. Truthfully Apple is walking into this but the whole campaign is waste of time. All the clever marketing in the world is not going to fix the fact that no one wants your product. As I have mentioned before I work as IT consultant. I have literally hundreds of clients. You know who many of them have said they want Vista? Zero, zip, zilch - none Dozens of them have said they would like a new computer but they don’t want Vista. And yet dozens more of them have said their next computer will be a Mac.

It all brings me back to feeling bad for Windows. They are the nerdy kid in the movie that we hope will get the girl but never does. They are the social outcast trying to act cool. If only they had spent the reported $300 advertising budget on actually fixing Vista. As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig.

Here is the story. I work as an IT consultant and I book my calendars in iCal as my services are requested. When I get a chance to catch up with the paperwork I go through the calendar and send invoices based on the time spent with each client.

Since the release of the kludge that is MobileMe, iCal has mysteriously deleted several appointments that I know of, refused to allow me to add new entries, and now has duplicated every single one of my calendars. Not that big a deal you may think. If only it were as simple as deleting the extra calendars. From what I can tell rather than syncing iCal on my computer and my iPhone, iCal has created separate calendars sharing the same name. This means that some of the entries are on one duplicate and others are on the second.

Thanks for screwing up yet again Apple. I hate you. OK maybe not but you and I are not on speaking terms.

Notice I said announced and not released. The iPhone 2.1 software will not be released until Friday and TomTom cannot release any GPS Navigation software until after this release. Granted they could have announced it to be released at a later date buy alas the famous Jobs “One More Thing” never came to pass. For details on what was released see ArsTechnica.

It is certainly possible that TomTom or another GPS navigation company will release software for the iPhone 3G in the near future. Personally I can think of no better reason to upgrade from my original iPhone.

It has already been noted that Apple’s PR department has described this as “A big deal” when encouraging the press to show up. The same article stated that Steve Jobs will be hosting the event.

So what is likely to be announced? I would be on an iTunes update, a new iPod nano, and …. wait for it …. iPhone 2.1 software. Why is this a big deal? Well, I suspect that the famous “One Last Thing” will be TomTom GPS Navigation software for the iPhone. The best way to get people to forget about all of the trouble that the iPhone 2.0 software and the iPhone 3G has had would be to wave a big shiny new feature in front of everyones face.

ArsTechnica reported way back on June 10th that TomTom had the software ready to go. That leaves a good 4 months of time to test the software before launch. TomTom also stated that the only thing keeping them from launching the software was a section of the iPhone SDK agreement preventing its release. It has also been noted that these terms were likely taken verbatim from Google.

Take this all with a grain of salt. I have no concrete information to support this, but I have seen enough of these launch events to call it an educated guess. We will find out soon enough. If I am correct I will be making a beeline for the nearest AT&T store to buy a 3G.

One particular pet peeve of mine is the flame war that arises out of the Mac vs Windows debate. A couple of months ago I set out to contribute to this debate in a more meaningful way than bickering and snipping in comment threads.

First thing first, I am a Mac user. I have used and worked on Windows, Novell, Linux and Unix PCs and servers for more than 10 years now. I also happen to have both Bachelors and Masters degrees relating to the IT field. I have dozens of vendor certifications from Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, CISSP, AVID and etc. Suffice it to say I know computers pretty well.

At a previous employer I was tasked with learning to produce video (this was at a major University) and the computers they gave me to perform this task were Macs. At the time I was a huge Linux nerd. I spent my free time recompiling custom kernels, building Asterisk phone systems from the CLI and all kinds of nerdy pursuits. Well after I got past the initial learning curve of the Macs, I fell in love. The Macs had all of the power of Linux and all of the polish that was lacking from Linux at the time.

So how does this relate to this article. Well I set out to prove over the course of two months that the Mac platform was superior to Windows. Furthermore I had a point to make. Ultimately either the Windows or Mac fanboys had to be wrong. Both sides cannot be correct that their platform is better than the other.  Bear with me here - this may sound a little pretentious. I felt my experience with both platforms coupled with my educational background left me qualified to pick a winner.  That winner is the Mac platform.

After comparing many of the key aspects of both platforms I hoped to prove my point. Below are the weekly articles, each one comparing an aspect of the two platforms and offering supporting evidence for my conclusions.

The Articles

• Summer of Mac Love
• Summer of Mac Love - Week 1 - Malware
• Summer of Mac Love - Week 2 - Software Updates
• Summer of Mac Love - Week 3 - Software Installation
• Summer of Mac Love - Week 4 - Software Removal
• Summer of Mac Love - Week 5 - User Interface
• Summer of Mac Love - Week 6 - Hardware
• Summer of Mac Love - Week 8 - Useful Life

Back to the Future

I have no doubt that many of you out there are going to disagree with me. That is partially the point. I am not claiming to be infallible, I will admit that I am wrong under the right conditions. What are those conditions? Well first you must be able to prove your point with supporting evidence. It must be a valid argument, “You are a stupid Apple Fanboy” is not going to make the cut.

Understand that I am not claiming that Windows is useless. The Windows platform took computers to the mainstream and drove the costs down to the low level that they exist at today. All computer users, including Mac users, have benefited from this situation. However the compromises that the Windows platform made to get to this point are now coming back to haunt them. Things are going to get worse for Windows before they get better.

In the past thirty years we have come full circle. The home computer revolution began with the Apple II. For years everyone else was playing catch-up. Eventually the Windows PC platform surpassed the Macintosh platform both technically and in market share. This continued until 2000 when Apple released OS X. The next version of OS X (Snow Leopard) is poised to make the transition to true 64-bit computing. Apple is also making a concerted effort to streamline every aspect of the operating system. Initial numbers from the beta builds indicate that the OS will shrink to between 1/4 and 1/5 of the current version. True 64-bit, more efficient code and the advantages covered in the articles above all seem to point to the Mac platform leaving Windows behind.

The Facts

Macs shipped in July 2001 meet the minimum requirements to run the latest server version of OS X (10.5).

Windows computers capable of running the latest version of Microsoft Small Business Server (2008) were widely available in July 2004.

The typical life span of a Windows PC is 3 years.

Macs have a typical lifespan of 6 years.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  In terms of useful life, capability relates to how long the computer can perform adequately enough for the common user.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  In this case availability will consider the availability of hardware to replace failed components such as memory, hard drives, etc.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  When comparing useful life, capability and usability are analogous.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  From this week’s perspective, capability is the direct result of efficiency. As such all issues relating to efficiency will be covered by capability. For more information on efficiency see the article covering hardware.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  As computers have approached the commodity stage in their life cycle the demand for upgrades and new features has begun to wane. Today’s common computer user utilizes their PC or Mac to perform tasks that fall far short of taxing the modern computer. Given this fact all modern computers (manufactured after 2000) should be capable of performing the large majority of common computing tasks. Several issues prevent this from being true. First the computer industry profits are built upon upgrade cycles resulting in forced upgrades such as Windows Vista. Second the computer software industry exacerbates this problem by abandoning the older platforms and ceasing support. The most striking example of this issue is Anti-Virus software. The core functions of anti-virus software have not changed for more than 10 years, however the AV vendors no longer update virus definitions for their older products requiring an upgrade. Finally as the operating systems of both Mac and Windows have added features, they have also added tremendous complexity and the resulting problems. This complexity results in inefficiencies and a race condition in which the hardware advancements must compensate for inefficient code. Although both OS X and Windows are affected by this malady the problem is far more pronounced on the Windows platform. As detailed above in the facts and in the efficiency section of the hardware article, Windows far less capable on older hardware than OS X.

  The capability issue is further compounded by the fact that you cannot run Windows without malware protection. This is not the case on OS X. Every program running on a computer requires resources. The additional overhead required by the various Windows protection utilities results in higher hardware requirements. The facts prove that OS X is capable of performing better than Windows with less resources. It can easily be deduced from this fact that the OS X platform capable of more for a longer period of time than the Windows platform.

• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Apple has a long history of being the first to introduce new hardware while also retiring legacy hardware before the Windows platform. Apple released the iMac G3 in 1998, replacing PS/2, parallel, and serial ports with USB ports. 10 years later Windows PCs still rely on this legacy hardware to some degree. In this ten years USB devices have popped up like mushrooms after a rain. Almost every imaginable hard device from hard drives, CD/DVD burners, Jump or Thumb Drives, printers and countless others can be purchased with a USB interface. The result is that the 10 year old iMac can utilize the newest hardware as long as it has a USB interface. The same can not be said of the 10 year old Windows PC.

  The aftermarket computer hardware industry sales cycle operates on a bell curve. On both sides of the curve the cost of the hardware increases dramatically. These two sides of the curve represent “cutting edge” hardware and legacy hardware. The fact that Mac hardware is typically a year or more ahead of the Windows PC market results in two facts. The upgrade costs of a new Mac are higher and the Mac hardware remains in the middle regions of the bell curve longer than Windows PCs. By remaining in the middle of the bell curve longer Macs are able to take advantage of the aftermarket price curve resulting in a longer window of hardware availability and lower costs.

The Winner

The novelty of owning the latest and greatest computer is quickly losing its appeal. The reality is the most users are far more concerned with two things. Will the computer perform the tasks I want and how much is the computer going to cost me. While the argument still swirls around the net as to which platform, Mac or Windows is more expensive, the fact remains that the Mac platform has a longer useful life than the Windows platform. In the long run this means that Mac users spend less money upgrading their computers as they typically last twice as long. Apple and Microsoft seem to be headed in two different directions in this regard. Vista is a known resource hog requiring the latest hardware to run at an acceptable level and all the indicators on the net lead me to conclude that this is only going to get worse with the next version of Windows. The next version of OS X however is focused on being even more efficient. The early testing releases of “Snow Leopard” seem to prove this theory. The core programs and the OS itself are a fraction of the size of their predecessors. Any first year computer science student will tell you that less code means two things, more speed and fewer problems. The advantage in useful life that OS X users experience is only to grow larger if these early indicators turn out to be true.

Break Out the Brooms - OS X Wins in a Sweep:
OS X 8 Windows 0

The Facts

All current versions of Windows are built upon a MS-DOS foundation.

Apple Macintosh computers are certified Unix computers.

Unix was created by Bell Labs, a division of AT&T, in 1969.

MS-DOS was first released in 1981..

56% of all websites on the Internet are on a Unix server.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  The core or foundation of an operating system can be accessed via the command line interface or CLI. Comparing the functionality available via the CLI provides the most direct evaluation of the capability of the operating system.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Availability at the foundation level must consider both vulnerabilities and the ability to recover from any issue. Vulnerabilities in this sense encompass malware as well as malfunctioning software.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  As I stated previously the command line interface is the most direct interface to the foundation of the operating system. Throughout this series of articles the perspective used has been that of the typical end user. The CLI is not user friendly, nor should it be, on either platform. For this reason usability is irrelevant to this comparison.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  Obtaining a useful metric for comparing the efficiency of the OS foundations remains elusive. The closest comparison would be the hardware requirements and this topic was covered last week. Rather than rehash this issue efficiency will be considered a non-factor for purposes of comparison.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Every action that can be performed on a Unix computer via the graphical user interface can also be performed via the command-line interface. This cannot be said of the DOS command-line interface. While many of the functions of the Unix command-line interface have been ported and added to DOS, these functions are but a subset of what is available on the Unix platforms. This advantage is derived from the fact that the Graphical User Interface of Unix systems is simply layered on top of the CLI. Unix systems have historically been used more heavily as a server platform. In many if not most of these cases the server had to be accessed via the command-line due to the fact that the server administrators did not have physical access to the machine. In order to perform administrative functions there only access was via the command-line interface in the form of a remote terminal session. This fact required that all functions be available via the command-line and all development was predicated upon this function. The graphical user interface was simply an add-on or luxury. The benefit of this functionality is in speed and troubleshooting. Most experienced system administrators will tell you that they can perform tasks via the CLI much quicker than via the GUI. A second advantage lies in troubleshooting. Troubleshooting a computer in its most simple form involves removing the sources of trouble one by one until the problem can be found. Having full control of the computer via the CLI removes the GUI as a source of problems. Perhaps the most obvious indicator of the deficiency of the Windows CLI was the Monad CLI that was to be included with Vista. One of the most cited advantages of the Unix CLI is its scripting ability or the ability to automate tasks via the CLI. Monad was created by Microsoft to address the scripting short comings of the Windows CLI. However Monad was pulled from Vista as it was discovered that it made writing viruses targeting Vista far easier.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The fact that the Monad CLI pulled from Vista to prevent virus outbreaks speaks to both the vulnerability of the CLI and obviously Windows itself. Without rehashing details previously covered the Unix platform has proven to be more stable and more secure than Windows. The fact that the mission critical servers of companies such as Amazon, eBay, Google and countless others run some variation of Unix speaks to the availability advantage of Unix systems. As mentioned in the articles covering the installation and removal of software in OS X, the fact that programs are independent entities and can be added and removed without affecting the operation of the OS. The architecture of Unix is directly responsible for this fact and the resulting increased availability. The security of the operating system also has a direct affect on availability. As established in our article on malware the Unix platforms in general and OS X in particular are less venerable to malware attacks furthering the availability advantage of OS X.

The Winner

A house as only as good as the foundation that it is built upon. The same can be said of computing platforms. The Unix platform which has been in development since 1969 was designed as a multi-tasking, multi-user platform from the beginning. Additionally the Unix platform has had networking built-in from day one. The Windows platform was not designed with these capabilities in mind. Windows was designed for the personal computer which was a single user environment that did not include networking. These functions were seen as server features that were not necessary for the personal computer user. However as the Internet developed and the Web emerged, Windows was left adding features to already shaky foundation. The desktops and laptops that we take for granted would have been the most powerful supercomputer in existence when both Unix and Windows were being developed. Unix, however was already several steps ahead as the servers of the time have become the personal of today. Unix platforms have always been more powerful, reliable and extensible than their Windows counterparts. Their downfall however was the user interface, where Windows was much more user friendly. OS X combines the powerful foundations of Unix with a user interface that surpasses Microsoft Windows.

Another win for OS X:
OS X 7 Windows 0

The Facts

The Apple II was the first mass produced home computer. It was first offered for sale on June 6, 1977.

Microsoft Windows 3.1 was released on March 18, 1992.

The first IBM compatible PC was released in June 1982.

Windows share of the personal computer was 91.8% on January 1, 2008.

Apple Macintosh computers accounted for 7.3% of the personal computer market.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Modern computers all use the same basic components made by the same manufactures. This applies to Macs and Windows PCs. Macs use the same CPU, Hard drive, and RAM as their Windows counterparts. The differentiation in hardware capability comes from features beyond the basics.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Given that both platforms now use the same hardware, availability cannot be compared on failure rate alone. Availability in this case must also consider the repair processes and the length of time required for repair.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  The basic elements of personal computers, in regards to hardware, has remained largely unchanged for the previous 30 years. Both Macs and Windows use the keyboards, mice, video display’s etc in the same manner as for purposes of comparison irrelevant.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  The only true measure of hardware efficiency is how the operating system on each platform utilizes the hardware. This can easily be observed by comparing the minimum hardware requirements of the respective platforms.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  The Windows platform has an apparent advantage in that there are dozens if not hundred of IBM compatible PC manufacturers. Common wisdom says that more brains attacking a problem leads to better results. However there has been remarkably little real innovation by the PC hardware manufactures. The best example of an innovation that has not been matched by the Mac platform is the hybrid laptop/tablet PC. The ability to flip over the screen of the laptop putting Windows into tablet mode is a invaluable feature for many users. The Mac platform however has seen numerous innovations, primarily in their laptop products. Backlit keyboards with ambient light sensors, the removal of legacy ports, multi-touch Trackpads, and the MagSafe power connector have all been unmatched by the PC manufacturers. The Mac platform has also been the first to implement many features PC users now take for granted. USB, Firewire, laptop hard drives with drop sensors all made their appearance on the Mac platform long before the PC manufacturers followed suit.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The repair process for the two platforms is strikingly different. The sheer number of hardware manufacturers and the separation of hardware and software producers on the Windows platforms leads to a repair process that has a very large amount of variance. Both dismal and pleasant repair experiences are common in the PC world. Unfortunately a lack of consistency is also common. To complicate the process the hardware manufacturers are known to point the finger at Microsoft when problems arise. Naturally the opposite is also true. Microsoft is also quick to point the finger at the hardware manufacturers when problems arise. The result of this finger pointing is a greatly extended repair time. Apple however does not suffer from this scenario. As manufacturer of both hardware and software they alone are ultimately responsible. With the addition of the Apple stores repair times from Apple have consistently been lower than their PC brethren. Customer service approval rates are great indicator of the repair process. Apple has lead this metric for the previous 5 years.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  The minimum requirements for the latest version of OS X are a 867 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and 9 GB of hard disk space. The minimum requirements for Windows Vista are 1 GHz processor, 1 GB of RAM, 40 GB hard disk and a video card with 128 MB of RAM. Even taken at face value the hardware requirements of Vista are far beyond that of OS X. The minimum requirements for the latest version of OS X Server are 867 MHz processor, 1 GB of RAM, and 20 GB of hard disk space. The minimum requirements for Windows Small Business Server 2008 are 2 GHz processor, 4 GB of RAM, and 60 GB hard disk. Again the requirements of OS X Server are half of the requirements for Windows Small Business Server 2008.

The Winner

The Mac platform set the standard of the personal computer when it released the Apple II over 30 years ago, a full 15 years before the release of Windows 3.1. Today the Mac platform has produced innovations that have yet to be matched by the PC manufacturers. It is also the Mac platform that has driven the adoption of new computing standards while retiring the antiquated technologies years ahead of the PCs. The repair process for Mac computers has consistently held a higher customer satisfaction rate and a faster turn around than the Windows platform. Comparing the efficiency of the two platforms also reveals the fact that the OS X platform is capable of performing far more with far less. It should come as now surprise that the company that invented the personal computer is still years ahead of the competition.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 6 Windows 0

The Facts

Graphical user interfaces are the system by which the user interacts with a computer.

The most frequently used element in both Windows and OS X is the file browser. Finder is the file browser for OS X and Explorer is the Windows files browser.

Aqua, the OS X GUI, was introduced in 2000.

Windows released Aero as part of Vista in 2006. Windows 95 through XP all used iterations of the same user interface.

Windows has only one “administrator” account type giving this account full access to the system.

OS X other Unix systems have two layers of administrator access. Root access which is not available to users and the administrator account available to users which contains only a subset of root privileges.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  A capable user interface must allow the user to manipulate the computer and the data within in it. File operations such as moving, copying, deleting renaming are examples. While providing these basic functions does it also protect the operating system from damage, malicious or accidental? Modern user interfaces must also be able to manage multiple windows and applications simultaneously.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The most dramatic test a user interface can endure is an catastrophic error. When a software element crashes is the user interface still available to attempt to correct or mitigate the crash.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  Usability is largely subjective but for purposes of this article usability means the following. How simple is the interface, i.e. are there ten convoluted ways to accomplish a task or one simple method. Is the interface consistent. Are dialog boxes and user interaction requests clear and concise?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  Last weeks criteria are also applicable to user interfaces. How quickly can the process be completed? How many steps are required? How much interaction with the user is required?

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Both OS X and Windows handle the basics of file manipulation in a similar manner. The difference arises in their ability to handle errors and prevent damage to the underlying operating system. See the Availability comparison for details. The second difference is the prevention of damage. Both systems attempt to prevent accidental and malicious damage by requiring administrative access to manipulate operating system files. OS X users are not given administrative access without a password. Furthermore “root” level access is required and administrative accounts are not in this group. Windows users can acquire the equivalent of “root” access by turning their account into an “Administrator” account. Finally the third major difference is how the user interface handles numerous windows and programs running simultaneously. Although both user interfaces are capable of managing this situation the difference lies in the usability, described below, of each method.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Due to the integration of Windows Explorer, Internet Explorer and the core of the operating system (ask the DOJ for details) a failure of any of these elements can render the system inoperable requiring at best a relaunch and at worst a rebuild. The architecture of Unix in general and OS X in particular provide for true task separation whereby each element is able to fail without taking down the rest of the system. In a Windows environment an failure in any of the three elements can render the user interface unavailable. The same is not true of OS X.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  The Windows user interface is far more complex than that of OS X. It is common that Windows tasked can be achieved by numerous methods whereas the same task in OS X can only be accomplished in at most two different ways. Interface consistency also favors OS X. Although it is not perfect the user interface is far more consistent in OS X than in Windows. This results in a reduced learning curve for users and therefore increased usability. Additionally the number of dialog boxes and user interaction elements that suffer from what I call nerd speak is far less in OS X. The blue screen of death is by far the most striking example. I can’t count the number of times a client has written down the gibberish on this screen and called me for an explanation. The kernel panic (BSOD equivalent) of OS X simply says “Your system has encountered an error and needs to restart.” The information presented in the BSOD only serves to confuse the common user as they are not capable of understanding the data that is presented.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  A failure of the Finder in OS X can be remedied in two steps. Pressing Command-Option-Esc on a Mac presents a dialog box with a button labeled “Relaunch Finder”. In order to restart Explorer in Windows four steps are required and you must know the name of the process, explorer.exe, in order to attempt a repair. The problem here is the common user will not be able to learn this process as it is beyond their comfort level. Viewing all open windows and subsequently selecting the desired window can be achieved in two steps in OS X via expose. The only method to accomplish this same task in Windows is click through every item in the taskbar. The number of steps required increases with every additional open window.

The Winner

The first thing I recall from my undergrad days in Computer Science was the KISS principal. I vividly remember frantically working to get my program working before the due date, only to have points deducted from my grade. When I protested stating the my program worked as required the professor countered with yes it works but it took 100 lines of code to accomplish what could be done in ten. The lesson learned was this. Getting a program to work was the easy part. Making that same program simple was the hard part. This is the philosophical difference between the two platforms in terms of usability. Apple took the time to make the user interface in OS X simple and efficient. Microsoft however seems to be happy with just getting it to work. Although not exhaustive the examination of criteria above demonstrates that OS X is more capable, more available, infinitely more usable, and more efficient than Windows. Although Microsoft made some progress in Vista, this progress is in many ways one step forward and two steps back. But that is an article in and of itself.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 5 Windows 0

The Facts

OS X does not have a dedicated software removal program. Software is removed by drag and drop to the trash can.

Windows software is removed through Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel, which actually launches MSI.EXE (the same application used to install software).

The Windows Installer generates the uninstallation sequence during the original installation providing the ability to rollback versions or completely uninstall software.

Windows maintains a database related to all software installations. This database contains version information regarding DLLs and registry information.

Removing VLC, the most robust video player out there, on a Mac took 13.7 seconds. An attempt to remove VLC on Vista took 87 seconds before it came to an abrupt stop. The VLC application was not recognized by Microsoft Installer and therefore could not be removed. The program was installed and functional, there was no way however to remove it.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Software removal mechanisms must perform several functions to be deemed truly capable. The software must be removed from the system while not rendering any of the remaining applications inoperable. The removal must be complete not leaving any trace of the software behind.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The mechanism by which software is removed must be functional when required. How vulnerable to failure is the mechanism itself.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  How easily can the average computer user complete the installation process. Is the process clearly and adequately described? Are any errors experienced clear and useful?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  How quickly can the process be completed? How many steps are required? How much interaction with the user is required?

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  When removing a program in OS X much is left behind. Preference files, application support files, and plugins are all left undisturbed by simply deleting the application. Although a program (AppZapper) exists to perform this function, it is not part of OS X and cannot be considered here. The Windows installer also leaves behind numerous registry keys when a program is uninstalled. Applications in OS X are stand alone executables that are wholly contained. As such their removal cannot affect the programs that remain. The same can not be said of Windows applications. As they share resources in the form of DLLs, fonts and etc, removing a Windows program can and often does leave another program inoperable.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  As was the case with Software installation on OS X, the ability always exists as it simply a delete operation on a file. Apparently cut and paste is not prone to problems. This is not true of Windows. There are numerous utilities designed to repair the Windows installer both from Microsoft and third parties. In 6 years I have never had the OS X application removal process fail. As I stated last week, I repair the Windows installer on a weekly basis for my clients.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  Again the results here are a mirror image of last week. The main stumbling block that I have seen in removing OS X applications comes from Windows users who expect the process to be more complicated. Although dragging an unwanted Application to the trash is fairly intuitive, Windows users are accustomed to a series of dialog boxes, confirmation requests and countless progress bars. As was the case with software installation, OS X does suffer from error messages during uninstallation. The most common error results from trying to update an application that is currently running. Closing the application and re-attempting the removal solves the problem almost always.

The Winner

As many of the processes required to remove software are identical to the installation process many of the results from last week are applicable. The first time I chose to remove a program from OS X I was struck by the simplicity. I recall thinking “So all I have to do is put the app in the Trash?! The fact that application removal is this simple makes OS X superior to Windows. The implications of this only reinforce this fact. If by accident you or someone else accidently deletes a program from a Mac you can easily restore the application by dragging it from the trash back to the Applications folder. Windows installation process does not allow for this. Recovering Windows applications requires starting the installation process over from scratch. Additionally when a OS X program is restored from an accidental deletion, all of the users settings are preserved. This is not the case with Windows software. If you really need to delete all traces of an application on OS X you can browse to the Preferences and Application Support folders and delete the files that are named after the relevant program. Try cleaning orphaned items from the registry by hand. Just kidding, please spare yourself the heartache. Messing with the registry is more likely to completely disable Windows than it is to result in anything productive.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 4 Windows 0